318 réponses à ce sujet

[cachx]

morrie23 wrote...

SIS = MI6. James Bond worked for MI6, Goldeneye is a classic FPS with multiplayer. Or am I overreaching? (probably).

And what organization battles James Bond? SPECTRE

Of course!

(I'm just having fun, don't take this too seriously)

[MonsterFish]

Mass Effect: First contact war?

[DarthCaine]

Mass Effect: Black Ops ?

[Gorn Kregore]

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

[maxut85]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

[Evil Johnny 666]

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Yes, but while the shooter mechanics were better, the level design took a plunge. Where was the more open environments which gave you a sense of place? Instead we get corridors after corridors, basically they took a step forward and two backwards. Also, there's no more interactive spaces during missions, ie. you could talk to people and do mini-quests in the science base in Noveria (more RPG-like) while now we just get an average third person shooter corridor-type mission. As I said, the shooting mechanics are a lot better, but they got the missions themselves wrong, they turned too much the game into a shooter while it's supposed to be an rpg, that's the best way to make a compelling universe like this one into a better one and more easily immersive.

[Aleksandar Shepard]

If that rumor is true than I'm sorry to say that it sucks.Mass Effect should remain what it is = an RPG/FPS hybrid.

I understand that Bioware is trying to milk more money from ME, but I strongly suggest that they do it AFTER ME3.



So Bioware, stop wasting times on this and finnish up with ME2 DLCs and work on ME3 than later start a multiplayer.



DON'T screw this up!

[shinobi602]

Aleksandar Shepard wrote...

If that rumor is true than I'm sorry to say that it sucks.Mass Effect should remain what it is = an RPG/FPS hybrid.
I understand that Bioware is trying to milk more money from ME, but I strongly suggest that they do it AFTER ME3.

So Bioware, stop wasting times on this and finnish up with ME2 DLCs and work on ME3 than later start a multiplayer.

DON'T screw this up!

They've been working on ME3 since before ME2 came out, but you're right though.

[Gorn Kregore]

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

They were incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics, here's the proof: Mass Effect 1. They learned from their mistakes however.

[UgnokOfOtherThings]

...There is alot of people ****ing that its going to be FPS...
...SHUT IT! God I'm disapointed, it's a rumor, just wait until factual info comes. Then you can **** all you want.

[MisterDyslexo]

UgnokOfOtherThings wrote...

...There is alot of people ****ing that its going to be FPS...
...SHUT IT! God I'm disapointed, it's a rumor, just wait until factual info comes. Then you can **** all you want.

QFT

Besides, if your worse fears aren't realized, you'll save enough energy to **** all over ME3 when thats announced

Gorn Kregore wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm
sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even
okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people
thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting
mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review
scores bioware has ever gotten.

They were incapable
of making a game with good shooting mechanics, here's the proof: Mass
Effect 1. They learned from their mistakes however.

I gotta disagree with you. Even though most people prefer ME2s combat, there wasn't actually anything wrong with ME1's gunplay. Sure a lot in ME2 is different, but they're more matters of preferance, not actual disfunction. They could've not changed anything for ME2 and it still would've been a good combat system

Modifié par MisterDyslexo, 20 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[maxut85]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

They were incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics, here's the proof: Mass Effect 1. They learned from their mistakes however.

good point. Although I'd say ME 1 actually had great combat. Not as good as ME 2 and definatly not as much of a shooter. But really were they even trying to make great shooting mechanics in the first game ? MY point is that in both cases bioware made a total kickass game. And I don't think it's going to be different this time.

[Kirabi]

Aleksandar Shepard wrote...

If that rumor is true than I'm sorry to say that it sucks.Mass Effect should remain what it is = an RPG/FPS hybrid.
I understand that Bioware is trying to milk more money from ME, but I strongly suggest that they do it AFTER ME3.

So Bioware, stop wasting times on this and finnish up with ME2 DLCs and work on ME3 than later start a multiplayer.

DON'T screw this up!

So many things wrong with this post

A.If you notice Mass effect has full deep story and they flesh out a large believeable universe.Saying Mass effect should remain what it is silly ,the Mass effect universe is to good not to use in other forms."Mass Effect" Shepard story should remain a RPG/FPS hybrid but Mass effect"The FPS",Mass effect"The RTS",Mass effect"The Cartoon",Mass effect"the comic",Mass effect"The Movie" are totally different things and has no effect on Shepard story Mass effect which brings me to the next point

B.What does  Mass effect game with Multiplayer have to do with Mass effect 3?Is Bioware incapable of working on two games at the same time?Does this mean that Dragon age 2 and The Old republic are slowing down Mass effect 3.? Come on now Bioware has tons of resources and since they have no multiplayer experiance it is fair to say they would have to hire lots of people do this.How do i know this because they had do for ToR.

It is silly to think this game would have any effect on ME 3 infact the people who work on ME2 DLC are not ones working ME 3 they are  a separate group of people.ME 3 already has it team and already been work on this good awhile.Mass effect "pure FPS/TPS" with multiplayer would be run by a different bioware studio and would have to hire lots of people with multiplayer background to make it.

[Ruud333]

Kirabi wrote...
A.If you notice Mass effect has full deep story and they flesh out a large believeable universe.Saying Mass effect should remain what it is silly ,the Mass effect universe is to good not to use in other forms."Mass Effect" Shepard story should remain a RPG/FPS hybrid but Mass effect"The FPS",Mass effect"The RTS",Mass effect"The Cartoon",Mass effect"the comic",Mass effect"The Movie" are totally different things and has no effect on Shepard story Mass effect which brings me to the next point

B.What does  Mass effect game with Multiplayer have to do with Mass effect 3?Is Bioware incapable of working on two games at the same time?Does this mean that Dragon age 2 and The Old republic are slowing down Mass effect 3.? Come on now Bioware has tons of resources and since they have no multiplayer experiance it is fair to say they would have to hire lots of people do this.How do i know this because they had do for ToR.

It is silly to think this game would have any effect on ME 3 infact the people who work on ME2 DLC are not ones working ME 3 they are  a separate group of people.ME 3 already has it team and already been work on this good awhile.Mass effect "pure FPS/TPS" with multiplayer would be run by a different bioware studio and would have to hire lots of people with multiplayer background to make it.

I'm sorry but we are going to have to ask you to leave.  There is no place in these forums for calm, sensible and level headed posts like this.  Please don't post here again until you have learnt how to complain, **** and generally over-react about everything BW does.

[Pepper4]

MI6=earth in me3?

The Alliance is the organization that handles the inter-galactic security, so the MI6 should handle GB national security, which means Shepard is coming to earth.



My english teacher would have killed me. (?)

[maxut85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Yes, but while the shooter mechanics were better, the level design took a plunge. Where was the more open environments which gave you a sense of place? Instead we get corridors after corridors, basically they took a step forward and two backwards. Also, there's no more interactive spaces during missions, ie. you could talk to people and do mini-quests in the science base in Noveria (more RPG-like) while now we just get an average third person shooter corridor-type mission. As I said, the shooting mechanics are a lot better, but they got the missions themselves wrong, they turned too much the game into a shooter while it's supposed to be an rpg, that's the best way to make a compelling universe like this one into a better one and more easily immersive.

you might now like it better but it's generally accepted by reviews that ME2 is much better than ME 1. And I personally didn't feel like it was corridors after corridors at all.

Modifié par maxut85, 20 novembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[Da_Lion_Man]

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Yes, but while the shooter mechanics were better, the level design took a plunge. Where was the more open environments which gave you a sense of place? Instead we get corridors after corridors, basically they took a step forward and two backwards. Also, there's no more interactive spaces during missions, ie. you could talk to people and do mini-quests in the science base in Noveria (more RPG-like) while now we just get an average third person shooter corridor-type mission. As I said, the shooting mechanics are a lot better, but they got the missions themselves wrong, they turned too much the game into a shooter while it's supposed to be an rpg, that's the best way to make a compelling universe like this one into a better one and more easily immersive.

you might now like it better but it's generally accepted by reviews that ME2 is much better than ME 1. And I personally didn't feel like it was corridors after corridors at all.

You mean reviews are fact?

[Archereon]

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Lol?  The shooter mechanics in ME2 are ****** poor due to bad level design.  Except for the rare blessing of fighting melee enemies, most fights are pathetically repetitive.

[maxut85]

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Yes, but while the shooter mechanics were better, the level design took a plunge. Where was the more open environments which gave you a sense of place? Instead we get corridors after corridors, basically they took a step forward and two backwards. Also, there's no more interactive spaces during missions, ie. you could talk to people and do mini-quests in the science base in Noveria (more RPG-like) while now we just get an average third person shooter corridor-type mission. As I said, the shooting mechanics are a lot better, but they got the missions themselves wrong, they turned too much the game into a shooter while it's supposed to be an rpg, that's the best way to make a compelling universe like this one into a better one and more easily immersive.

you might now like it better but it's generally accepted by reviews that ME2 is much better than ME 1. And I personally didn't feel like it was corridors after corridors at all.

You mean reviews are fact?

well no but reviews are a pretty accurate way of telling you if a game is good or not. You might think they took two steps backwards. but me and many other people like it better the way it is. Theres really nothing for you to complain about if most people like ME 2 better and it got better reviews.

[maxut85]

Archereon wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Lol?  The shooter mechanics in ME2 are ****** poor due to bad level design.  Except for the rare blessing of fighting melee enemies, most fights are pathetically repetitive.

nice opinion dude.

[MadCat221]

If it is meant to "appeal to a Call of Duty" market...
I predict that there will be only human male characters, no alien races, and no biotic/tech powers, just guns.

Anything beyond that would be too hard for a "Call of Duty market" to comprehend.

Modifié par MadCat221, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:01 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

maxut85 wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


Yes, but while the shooter mechanics were better, the level design took a plunge. Where was the more open environments which gave you a sense of place? Instead we get corridors after corridors, basically they took a step forward and two backwards. Also, there's no more interactive spaces during missions, ie. you could talk to people and do mini-quests in the science base in Noveria (more RPG-like) while now we just get an average third person shooter corridor-type mission. As I said, the shooting mechanics are a lot better, but they got the missions themselves wrong, they turned too much the game into a shooter while it's supposed to be an rpg, that's the best way to make a compelling universe like this one into a better one and more easily immersive.

you might now like it better but it's generally accepted by reviews that ME2 is much better than ME 1. And I personally didn't feel like it was corridors after corridors at all.

You mean reviews are fact?

well no but reviews are a pretty accurate way of telling you if a game is good or not. You might think they took two steps backwards. but me and many other people like it better the way it is. Theres really nothing for you to complain about if most people like ME 2 better and it got better reviews.

That's a bit naive. I thought it was consensus that big reviewers are bull**** <_< Unfortunately it seems it's not the case. Most reviewer nowadays will praise anything that is more easy to play, more akin to a movie than video games and other unwanted things. Plus, it's known that they're sold, I thought it was pretty obvious and proven several times. I could write two pages on how Splinter Cell Conviction is bull****, how it destroyed the series, how the story makes no sense and how it obviously catered to the Call of Duty demograph (a franchise that is highly acclaimed yet sucks on all accounts after the release of Call of Duty 2) yet it got high scores from everyone.

Often, a game being good or not is opinion. Yes you can often objectively tells that something works or not, that something makes this or that better, but it's often all a matter of opinion. Also, like I like to say it's not because Britney Spears is popular that she's good, and pre-release hype =/= quality. Reviews mean nothing really, it doesn't reflect the community's opinion, only the biaised view of the writers.

Okay, I've been a bit far with the corridors after corridors thing - as there's open spaces with plenty of cover and different ways to get to an engagement - and I've started a new game just now, but my point still stands. Missions are nothing more than go from point A to point B, open spaces or not. No mini-qests within them either, it's purely shooting (or anything else the your class allows you) and doing some talks here and there. There's no connected spaces which makes sense, take Noveria again, look how the science base is all well-made and connected and not just big rooms connected by corriders all the way through, bases, areas feel like bases or areas. There's a really apparent disconnect feel in ME2 despite the vastly superior shooting mechanics.

And then, I can't believe how anyone can say the conversation system is of any good. Play KOTOR, you'll know how much the system took a quality plunge. You barely have any choice, being stricly paragon or stricly renegade is the only encouraged ways as they both offer you everything and sticking to a grey road in more of an handicap than a choice giving you advantages over certain circumstances. Some people shouldn't react favoribly to you to both paragon and renegade options, there's just so much of these cases, basically conversations are only you asking for more information than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy ME2 and ME1, but both have their faults and both have a big deal of problems making anyone saying the game is good as it gets, someone who easily settles for less. Not gamebreaking problems, but plenty of little (and not so little) things which should be corrected. People should at least view these as refinements rather than patching (nonexistent to them) problems. Otherwise we'll get ME2 part 2 and not just me and people thinking like me will be disappointed.

[Evil Johnny 666]

maxut85 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

maxut85 wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

I'm sorry but, I highly doubt Bioware is capable of making a good or even okay multiplayer game without screwing it up.

I bet many people thought bioware was incapable of making a game with good shooting mechanics. But somehow ME2 it ended up getting some of the best review scores bioware has ever gotten.

Lol?  The shooter mechanics in ME2 are ****** poor due to bad level design.  Except for the rare blessing of fighting melee enemies, most fights are pathetically repetitive.

nice opinion dude.

Yes it's an opinion as is what anyone thinks about any game. And what was your point? At least he contributes to something...

I agree with Achereon. Well, I wouldn't say ****** poor, but it's very, very repetitive and makes the level design flaws even more apparent. Each missions are made in the same way, play the same way and are relatively long. Usually I prefer the later, but when there's nothing to see, not so much. Play again ME1, all missions play differently, they don't all have the same formula, same with the relatively boring and repetitive exploration quests, but at least they didn't have the very same formula as the main missions themselves. That's another big flaw in ME2, you either have the same very repetitive shooting, or your less numerous than before rpg quests, no in between. And the conversation with lacklustre options.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 20 novembre 2010 - 11:20 .

[-Skorpious-]

MadCat221 wrote...

If it is meant to "appeal to a Call of Duty" market...
I predict that there will be only human male characters, no alien races, and no biotic/tech powers, just guns.

Anything beyond that would be too hard for a "Call of Duty market" to comprehend.

You do know that the most recent Call of Duty has 50+ weapons, about 7 attachments per weapon, over 25 different grenades/special equipment, and a selection of about 35 playstyle-changing perks and killstreaks. What does ME have? About 18 weapons overall and 6 talents per class?

Don't be so quick to deem the "Call of Duty market" brainless when ME2 is inferior in, well, rpg gameplay mechanics.

And besides, pointing out the fact that CoD players will only tolerate playing a human character is completely rediculous when you consider that CoD takes place in modern times, thus, the CoD fanbase has never been exposed to playing as a different species before..